Some  Lincoln  Correspondence 
with  Southern  Leaders  before 
the  Outbreak  of  the  Civil  War 


>. 


FROM  THE   COLLECTION    OP 

JUDD  STEWART 
1909 


1 

1 

■ 

i 

1. 


Some  Lincoln  Correspondence 
with  Southern  Leaders  before 
the  Outbreak  of  the  Civil  War 


FROM   THE   COLLECTION    OF 

JUDD  STEWART 
1909 


COPYRIGHT    1909 

By  JUDD   STEWART 

NEW    YORK 


FOREWORD 

Recently  I  acquired  the  correspondence  between  President 
Abraham  Lincoln,  Mr.  Alexander  H.  Stephens  and  Senator 
J.  J.  Crittenden  given  herein.  It  seems  to  me  proper  to  make  a 
permanent  record  of  these  documents  because  they  add  to  the 
history  of  the  time  and  much  to  the  record  of  Lincoln's  efforts 
to  prevent  the  War  of  the  Rebellion. 

By  publishing  the  correspondence  it  is  hoped  that  perhaps  the 
originals  of  the  letters,  which  are  certified  as  being  correct  by  Mr. 
Stephens,  may  be  brought  to  light.  Senator  Crittenden's 
letter  to  Mr.  Stephens,  the  original  of  which  is  in  my  collection, 
suggests  that  he  might  also  have  asked  Mr.  Lincoln's  opinion  on 
the  same  question  and  the  internal  evidence  of  the  correspond- 
ence, it  seems  to  me,  indicates  that  these  letters  were  really 
written  by  these  men.  I  have  indicated  in  notes  which  of  the 
letters  are  original,  and  which  are  copies,  certified  to  by  Mr. 
Stephens. 

The  letter  from  Mr.  Lincoln  to  Mr.  Stephens,  January  19th, 
i860,  and  Mr.  Stephens'  reply  January  25th,  present,  perhaps 
as  no  two  other  letters  could  do,  the  views  of  the  South  and  the 
North  prior  to  the  breaking  out  of  the  Rebellion. 

The  letter  of  Mr.  Lincoln  to  Senator  Crittenden  Dec.  22nd, 
1859  is  somewhat  curt  in  its  tone,  but  may  be  explained  by  the 
fact  that  Senator  Crittenden  went  out  of  his  way  to  help  Douglas 
in  1858,  and  Lincoln  was  always  a  little  sore  over  Crittenden 
meddling  in  the  matter  because  he  thought  Crittenden,  as  well  as 
Greely  and  others  should,  on  principle,  have  sided  with  him. 

Mr.  Lincoln's  letter  of  January  19th,  i860  to  Mr.  Stephens 
(duplicated  for  Senator  Crittenden)  was  dictated,  and,  in  addition, 
was  an  effort  to  answer  both  Mr.  Stephens  and  Senator  Critten- 
den with  one  letter;  both  of  these  circumstances  would  quite 
naturally  tend  to  detract  from  Mr.  Lincoln's  usual  clarity  of 
expression,  although  the  substance  of  the  letter  is  what  might  be 
expected  from  him. 

JlJDD    STEn'ART. 

Plainfield,  Nov.  30th,  1909. 


December   22,    1859. 
Address,  Springfield,  Illinois. 

Hon.  J.  J.  Crittenden,  U.  S.  Senate 

My  Dear  Sir:  I  should  not  care  to  be  a  candidate  of  a  party 
having  as  its  only  platform  "The  Constitution,  the  Union  and 
the  enforcement  of  the  laws."  "The  Constitution,"  as  we 
understand  it,  has  been  the  shibboleth  of  every  party  or  mal- 
content from  the  Hartford  Convention  that  wanted  to  secede 
from  slave  territory  and  the  "Blue  Light"  burners  who  were  in 
British  sympathy  in  181 2,  to  John  C.  Calhoun  and  South  Carolina 
Nullification.  The  Union,  we  intend  to  keep,  and  loyal  states 
will  not  let  disloyal  ones  break  it.  Its  constitution  and  laws 
made  in  persuance  thereof  must  and  shall  remain,  "the  supreme 
law  of  the  land."  The  enforcement  of  what  laws?  If  they  are 
those  which  give  the  use  of  jails  &  domestic  police  for  masters 
seeking  "fugitives  from  labor"  that  means  war  in  the  North. 
No  law  is  stronger  than  is  the  public  sentiment  where  it  is  to  be 
enforced.  Free  speech  and  discussion  and  immunity  from  whip 
&  tar  and  feathers,  seem  implied  by  the  guarantee  to  each  state 
of  "a  republican  form  of  government."  Try  Henry  Clay's 
"gradual  emancipation"  scheme  now  in  Kentucky,  or  to  circulate 
W.  L.  Garrison's  Liberator  where  most  men  are  salivated  by  the 
excessive  use  of  the  Charleston  Mercury.  Father  told  a  story 
of  a  man  in  your  parts  required  to  give  a  warrantee  bill  of  sale 
with  a  horse.  He  wrote,  "I  warrant  him  sound  in  skin  and 
skeleton  and  without  faults  or  faculties."  That  is  more  than  I 
can  say  of  an  unmeaning  platform.  Compromises  of  principles 
break  of  their  own  weight. 

Yours  very  respectfully 

A.  Lincoln. 


(The  above  is  from   a  copy  made  by  the  same  person  who  copied  the 
letters  certified  as  correct  by  Mr.  Stephens  as  noted  herein.) 


Washington,  Jany  13th,   i860. 
My  Dear  Sir 

I  send  you  by  this  mail  a  pamphlet  of  my  friend,  S.  S.  Nicholas 
of  Louisville,  Kenty,  proposing  &  recommending  a  new  plan  of 
electing  or  selecting  presidents  of  the  United  States — He  wants 
your  opinion  upon  it — Please  write  to  him  what  you  think  of  it, 
when  you  have  time  to  read  it.  He  is  one  of  our  most  able  & 
respected  citizens  of  Kentucky.  He  will  be  pleased  to  hear  from 
you.  Mr.  Wm.  C.  Rives  has  given  him  an  opinion  &  he  desires 
yours. 

The  House  is  still  without  a  Speaker,  &  confusion  still  reigns. 

This  is  the  result  of  the  conflict  that  has  been  so  long  waged 
between  the  Democratic  &  Republican  parties.  It  has  brought 
the  country  to  the  verge  of  ruin.  To  displace  both  these  parties 
from  power  seems  to  be  the  only  remedy — the  only  safety  for  the 
country.  You  will  have  seen  that  some  of  us  here  are  making 
an  appeal  to  the  people  to  rise  in  the  form  of  a  national  &  constitu- 
tional party  and  apply  that  remedy.  What  think  you  of  it? 
If  such  men  as  you  would  but  espouse  &  lead  in  the  movement, 
it  could  not  but  succeed — the  feelings  of  the  whole  country  favours 
it  &the  whole  country  would  be  benefited  by  it.  Indeed,  we  may 
well  (say)  that  the  country  could  not  be  injured  by  any  change. 

You  may  be  assured  of  this,  that  the  movement  is  entirely 
unselfish,  &  that  the  only  motives  to  it  are  the  good  of  the 
country,  &  to  rescue  it  from  the  plague  of  party  that  is  now  upon  it . 

We  are  labouring  for  the  advancement  of  no  individual.  We 
spurn  such  an  imputation.  We  have  no  individual  in  view 
even,  for  the  Presidency.     Our  only  aim  is  our  Country's  good. 

The  only  question  with  you  will  be  whether  the  means  by  which 
we  seek  that  end  are  the  appropriate  &  best  means,  namely,  the 
formation  of  such  a  party  as  is  proposed.  I  do  not  seek  to  draw 
you  from  the  sequestration  in  which  you  have  chosen  to  place 
yourself,  but  I  have  been  so  long  accustomed  to  regard  your 
opinions  with  respect  &  confidence,  that  I  should  like,  for  own 
satisfaction,  if  for  no  other  purpose,  to  have  your  views  upon  this 
occasion,  if  your  cases  &  your  clients  have  left  you  time  to  think 
of  the  subject.  I    am, 

Your  Friend  &c 
Hon.  Alex'r  H.  Stephens.  J.  J.  Crittenden. 

(The  above  is  from  the  original  autograph  letter  now  in  my  possession.) 


Springfield,  Illinois,  19  January,  i860. 

Duplicated  for  Senator  J  no.  J .  Crittenden 

Honorable  A.  H.  Stephens 

Dear  Sir:  Your  letter  and  one  from  Hon.  J.  J.  Crittenden, 
reached  me  at  the  same  time.  He  wants  a  new  party  on  the 
platform  of  "The  Union,  the  constitution  and  the  enforcement 
of  the  Laws" — not  construed.  You  from  your  retirement  at 
Liberty  Hall  complain  of  the  bad  faith  of  many  in  the  free  states 
who  refuse  to  return  fugitives  from  labor,  as  agreed  in  the  com- 
promise of  1850,  1854:  but  I  infer  that  you  agree  with  Judge 
Douglas  that  the  territories  are  to  be  left  to  "form  and  regulate 
their  own  domestic  institutions  subject  only  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States."  I  remember  the  letter  of  the  Whigs  in 
Congress  in  1852  which  defeated  Gen'l  Winfield  Scott  on  the 
ground  that  he  did  not  present  your  view  of  States'  rights.  Also 
that  your  letter  destroyed  the  Whig  party  and  it  is  said  that  you 
and  Toombs  voted  for  Webster  after  he  was  dead.  You  are  still 
"harping"  on  "my  daughter"  and  you  supported  Zach  Taylor  as 
a  sound  Kentuckian.  If  I  understand  you,  here  are  two  con- 
structions :  Crittenden  being  willing  for  the  Henry  Clay  gradual 
emancipation,  I  think.  The  rights  of  local  self-government  as 
defined  by  Webster,  also  including  state  determination  of 
citizenship,  are  clearly  in  the  Constitution.  When  we  were  both 
Members  of  the  Young-Indian  Club  in  Washington  you  then 
argued  for  paramount  state  Sovereignty  going  very  nearly  to  the 
extreme  of  state  nullification  of  Federal  laws  with  John  C. 
Calhoun:  and  of  secession  at  will  with  Robert  Toombs.  The 
Colonies  were  subject  up  to  July  4,  1776,  and  had  no  recognized 
independence  until  they  had  won  it  in  1783:  but  the  only  time 
they  ever  had  the  shadow  of  separate  sovereignty  was  in  the  two 
years  before  they  were  compelled  to  the  articles  of  Confederation 
July  9,  1778.  They  fought  England  for  seven  years  for  the 
right  to  club  together  but  when  were  they  independent  of  each 
other?  Let  me  say  right  here  that  only  unanimous  consent  of 
all  of  the  states  can  dissolve  this  Union.  We  will  not  secede  and 
you  shall  not.  Let  me  show  you  what  I  think  of  the  reserved 
rights  of  the  states  as  declared  in  the  articles  of  Confederation 
and  in  the  Constitution  and  so  called  Jeffersonian  amendments; 
suppose  that  I  sold  a  farm  here  in  Illinois  with  all  and  singular 


the  rights,  members  and  appurtenances  to  the  same  in  any  wise 
belonging  or  appertaining,  signed,  sealed  and  delivered:  I  have 
now  sold  my  land.  Will  it  at  all  change  the  contract  if  I  go  to 
the  clerk's  office  and  add  a  post  script  to  the  record;  that  all 
rights  not  therein  conveyed  I  reserve  to  myself  and  my  children? 
The  colonies,  by  the  Declaration  of  July  4,  1776,  did  not  get 
nationality,  for  they  were  leagued  to  fight  for  it.  By  the  articles 
of  Confederation  of  July  9,  1778  under  stress  and  peril  of  failure 
without  union;  a  government  was  created  to  which  the 
states  ceded  certain  powers  of  nationality,  especially  in  the  com- 
mand of  the  army  and  navy,  as  yet  supported  by  the  states. 
Geo.  Washington  was  commander  in  Chief  and  congress  was 
advisory  agent  of  the  states,  commending  but  not  enacting  laws 
for  the  thirteen,  until  empowered  This  proved  insufficient 
and  the  peril  of  failure  was  great  as  ever,  at  home  and  abroad. 
Alexander  Hamilton  and  others  of  New  York  were  first  to  urge 
that  a  government  with  no  revenues,  except  state  grants,  could 
have  no  credit  at  home  or  abroad.  Three  years  later  Virginia 
led  the  states  in  urging  concessions  of  power,  and  then  by  twelve 
states — Rhode  Island  objecting — was  framed  our  original  Con- 
stitution of  1787  fully  three  and  a  half  years  after  the  peace  that 
sealed  our  United  national  Independence.  The  post-script 
erroneously  all  attributed  to  Thomas  Jefferson;  came  in  three 
installments.  The  first  ten  (10)  proposed  in  the  first  session  of 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  25th  September  1789  were 
ratified  by  the  constitutional  number  of  states  15  December  1791, 
New  Jersey  20  November  1789  and  Virginia  15  December  1791, 
eleven  states  only;  Georgia  and  Connecticut  dissenting.  The 
eleventh  amendment  proposed  5  March  1794;  Third  Congress 
was  then  declared  duly  adopted  by  a  President's  message  of, 
8  January,  1798;  Eleven  states  consenting  &  finally  all  con- 
senting. The  twelvth  amendment  was  proposed  in  congress  12 
December  1803  and  declared  ratified  through  the  secretary  of 
State  25  September  1804  by  the  constitutional  quorum  of  states. 
The  first  ten  articles  are  the  Bill  of  Rights  and  each  set  of  amend- 
ments had  a  preface.  The  eleventh  limited  the  Federal  Judiciary 
The  twelfth  regulated  general  elections  for  President  and  Vice- 
President  of  the  United  States.  Do  any  or  all  of  these  retract 
the  fee-simple  grant  of  great  and  permanent  powers  to  the 
Federal    Government?     There    are    three    great    Departments 


I  the  President  commanding  the  Army  and  Navy  and  with  a 
veto  upon  a  plurality  of  Congress.  II  the  Congress  coining  all 
moneys;  collecting  all  imposts  on  imports,  regulating  all  inter- 
state as  all  external  commerce;  making  all  subordinate  Federal 
Judiciary  as  appointed  of  the  President  with  power  to  have  a 
ten  mile  square  seat  and  to  take  grants  or  to  buy  for  Forts, 
Dock  yards  and  Arsenals;  having  post  offices  and  post  roads 
under  laws  executed  by  the  President,  and  to  frame  supreme 
consitutional  laws  and  set  up  courts  and  Judges.  Ill  The  supreme 
court  set  as  arbiter  and  expounder  of  the  constitution  and  of  all 
differences  of  states  and  with  states  or  of  them  with  the  Federa- 
tion; no  loop  hole  left  for  nullification,  and  none  for  secession, — 
because  the  right  of  peaceable  assembly  and  of  petition  and  by 
article  Fifth  of  the  Constitution,  the  right  of  amendment,  is  the 
Constitutional  substitute  for  revolution.  Here  is  our  Magna 
Carta  not  wrested  by  Barons  from  King  John,  but  the  free  gift  of 
states  to  the  nation  they  create  and  in  the  very  amendments 
harped  upon  by  states  rights  men  are  proposed  by  the  Federal 
congress  and  approved  by  Presidents,  to  make  the  liberties  of 
the  Republic  of  the  West  forever  sure.  All  of  the  States'  Rights 
which  they  wished  to  retain  are  now  and  forever  retained  in  the 
Union,  including  slavery;  and  so  I  have  sworn  loyalty  to  this 
constitutional  union,  and  for  it  let  me  live  or  let  me  die.  But 
you  say  that  slavery  is  the  corner  stone  of  the  south  and  if 
separated,  would  be  that  of  a  new  Republic;  God  forbid.  When 
a  boy  I  went  to  New  Orleans  on  a  flat  boat  and  there  I  saw  slavery 
and  slave  markets  as  I  have  never  seen  them  in  Kentucky,  and  I 
heard  worse  of  the  Red  River  plantations.  I  hoped  and  prayed 
that  the  gradual  emancipation  plan  of  Henry  Clay  or  the  Liberian 
colonization  of  John  Q.  Adams  might  lead  to  its  extinction  in  the 
United  States.  Geo.  Washington,  the  Massachusetts  Adams, 
presidents  James  Madison  and  Monroe,  Benj.  Franklin;  opposed 
its  extension  into  the  territories  before  I  did.  The  ordinance  of 
1784,  1787  for  the  North  West  territory  ceded  by  Virginia,  was 
written  by  Thomas  Jefferson  and  signed  only  by  slave-holders 
and  that  prohibited  forever  slavery,  or  involuntary  servitude  not 
imposed  for  crime.  Your  grandfather,  Captain  Stephens,  suf- 
fered at  Valley  Forge  and  bled  at  Brandywine  for  the  principles 
of  the  men  of  17 76-1 783.  Your  Uncle,  Justice  Grier  of  the 
Supreme  Bench  has  recently  expounded  the  Supreme  Law  as  I 

8 


honestly  accept  it.  Senator  Crittenden  complains  that  by  the 
device  of  party  conventions  and  nominations  of  candidates  for 
Presidents  and  Vice-Presidents  the  Federal  plan  of  separate  and 
unbiased  Electoral  Colleges  is  taken  away  and  the  popular 
feature  of  elections  is  restored  to  the  people.  I  reckon  they 
wanted  it  so.  What  are  you  agoing  to  do  about  it?  To  abolish 
conventions  you  must  abolish  candidates.  In  your  Oxford  Col- 
lege oration,  you  say  "I  love  the  Union  and  revere  its  memories; 
I  rejoice  in  all  its  achievements  in  arts  in  letters  and  in  arms." 
If  it  is  a  good  thing,  why  not  just  keep  it  and  say  no  more  about 
it? 

I  am  not  in  favor  of  a  party  of  Union  constitution  and  law  to 
suit  Mr.  Bell  or  Mr.  Everett  and  be  construed  variously  in  as 
many  sections  as  there  are  states. 

This  is  the  longest  letter  I  ever  dictated  or  wrote. 

But  this  is  to,  only  you  alone,  not  to  the  public. 

Yours  truly 

A.  Lincoln. 


(The  above  is  from  a  copy  certified  as  correct  by  Mr.  Stephens.) 


9 


STATE  OF  GEORGIA 
Executive  Department 

Atlanta,  Ga., 1882. 

Crawfordsville,  Ga.,  January  25th,  i860. 

Hon.  Abraham  Lincoln, 

Springfield,  Illinois. 

My  Dear  Sir: 

Yours  of  the  19.  is  here.  I  have  little  faith  in  any  new  or  old 
party  being  able  to  save  us  from  the  madness,  as  much  of  the 
south  as  the  north.  A  Constitutional  Union  party  pledged  to 
the  enforcement  of  all  laws,  and  in  its  platform  fully  recognizing 
the  paramount  State  sovereignty,  seems  hopeful  to  some  men — 
less  so  to  me  than  when  I  wrote,  as  you  will  see  by  my  reply  to 
Senator  Crittenden.  As  a  railway  man  might  say — "I  foresaw 
a  smash  up  on  our  road,  and  got  off  at  the  first  station."  My 
retirement  from  congress  means — I  trust — rest  and  an  end  of 
public  life.  There  are  two  points  in  your  letter.  First,  il- 
lustrating our  constitution  and  amendments  by  a  fee-simple  deed 
with  a  post-script.  This  is  clever.  Just  such  deeds  are  known 
to  Georgia  law,  the  tail  inserted  before  signing.  To  avoid  the 
equity  of  redemption  of  mortgage,  the  Insurance  loan  companies, 
mostly  from  the  North  West,  take  a  fee-simple  deed,  conditional 
to  be  void  if  the  loan  and  interest  are  paid  in  three  years.  What 
remains  of  the  title?  Everything, — if  the  condition  is  kept. 
Let  me  give  you  a  better  illustration.  Pensioners  of  the  United 
States,  receive  for  service  or  wound,  each  a  part  of  what  right- 
fully and  originally  is  of  the  government,  i.  e.  money  of  the  public 
revenue,  when  granted  it  is  truly  inalienable.  The  pensioner 
cannot  sell  or  pawn  the  certificate,  not  even  for  the  full  value  of  it 
for  an  average  life-time  and  such  premium  as  the  certainty  of 
payment  commands  with  public  bonds.  Not  voidable,  but  void 
is  such  a  sale,  the  government  admitting  no  consideration  as 
equal  to  its  faith  with  the  pensioner.  This  government  right  is 
devisible, — inheritable — inalienable.  Take  a  scripture  illustra- 
tion. The  covenant  of  the  Holy  Family  ran  by  inheritance 
through  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob.  In  the  third  step  it  fell  to 
the  younger  brother;    in  the  fourth,  it  divided  to  twelve  sons, 


10 


Dinah  not  inheriting.     Each  son  had  an  equal  inalienable  tribal 
right  as  entire  as  that  Abraham  and  Isaac  possessed.     This  was 
tested  when  the  David  line  of  the  royal  tribe  of  Judah  represented 
by  Rehoboam,  undertook  to  coerce  the  seceded  ten  tribes  under 
Jeroboam  (i,  Kings  XI  th  31,  32,)  and  although  possessed  of 
Kingly  divine  right,  he    was  forbidden  of    the  Lord.      (I.  King 
XII:    21.)     The   thirteen    colonies   revolting   from    the    British 
crown,  were  successful;    and  whether  you  date  Independence 
from  July   4,    1776,  or  in   1783,  when  seven  years  later  it  was 
recognized,  the  original  sovereignty  of  Great  Britain  became  all 
vested  in  the  colonies,  and  if  Dinah  had  been  wed  the  partition  of 
the  sovereignty  into  thirteen  full  nations  or  tribes  would  be  a 
parallel.     Indeed  it  was  so  since  Joseph  parted  to  Ephram — 
Manasseh    the    younger    first.     Again,    the    Hebrew   could    not 
alienate  heritage  or  liberty;    all  came  back  in  the  Jubilee;  only 
strangers  could  (Leviticus  XXV:  10  to  17).     State  sovereignty 
like  "life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness,"  is  inalienable — 
priceless — above    all    consideration,    expediency    or    necessity. 
States  could  not  give  away — could  not  sell — that  Pension  of  the 
Divine    Governor — that    heritage    and    that   birth-right    of   the 
mother  birth-pangs  of  17 76-1 783.     Born  in  a  bed  of  fire  of  the 
Revolution — States  sold  not  their  rights — as  did  Esau  for  a  mess 
of  pottage.     Sovereignty  here  in  our  states  is  no  longer  in  the 
crown,  nor  is  it  in  the  agent  appointee:   but  it  is  in  the  states. 
The  southern  fire-eaters  who  clamor  for  extension  of  Slavery 
into  the  territories,  by  the  popular  local  vote  or  by  Congress, 
have  no  sense.     We  will  settle  no  more  slave  territory  unless  we 
reopen  the  African  slave  trade  to  get  more  negroes.     Granting 
Congress  power  to  put  it  in,  also  concedes  power  to  keep  it  out. 
When   once  these  malcontents  have   conceded  to  the   Federal 
Agent,    the   right   to   intermeddle   with    the    paramount    local 
sovereignty ;   the  same  in  the  territory  preparing  for  statehood  as 
in  the  states ;  all  barriers  will  break  and  centralism  will  obliterate 
state    lines.     Review    this    matter    again.     Slavery    and    sec- 
tionalism will  not  always  force  issues,  and  Statehood  is  as  precious 
to  the  North  West  as  it  is  to  the  South  East.     Your  second  point 
is  the  word  "Perpetual"  and  in  the  last  two  words  of  the  caption 
"Articles  of  Confederation  and  Perpetual  Union" — the  sense  of 
the  title  is  submerged  and  also  of  all  of  the  articles,  except 
Thirteen. 


11 


Articles  of  Confederation:  Each  of  them  is  equally  vital. 
No  delegate  would  have  signed  one  without  them  all.  "Perpetual 
Union" — "This  union  shall  be  perpetual"  on  these  terms  only. 
Did  you  ever  notice  that  this  language  is  not  repeated  in  the 
"More  perfect"  Constitution?  You  know  as  well  as  I  do  that 
Virginia  and  other  states  as  New  York  and  Rhode  Island  in  all  of 
the  early  proposals  to  extend  the  power  of  Congress  over  im- 
port duties  for  the  sake  of  public  credit  based  on  revenue;  asked 
that  the  experiment  be  limited  to  a  term  of  years,  ten,  fifteen  or 
thirty.  Only  the  general  trust  in  each  other  and  in  the  limita- 
tions exacted :  made  it  a  general  and  not  a  limited  time  partner- 
ship. Granting  more  power  against  such  protests  as  that  of 
Rhode  Island  that  it  might  be  used  against  the  states.  The 
language  of  the  Articles  of  1778  as  to  perpetuity  was  intentionally 
omitted.  Our  ancestors  did  not  foresee  that  slavery,  then 
general  would  sectionalize ;  and  that  in  doing  business  as  a  firm 
for  one  hundred  years,  that  valuable  assets  viz:  our  vast  terri- 
torial farms — would  be  struggled  for  by  greedy  banks  of  partners 
— and,  as  Henry  Clay  foresaw  in  our  expansion  by  conquest  from 
Mexico,  would  threaten  or  produce  inter-state  and  sectional  war. 
I  pray  that  there  may  be  no  disunion.  The  one  weakness  of  the 
south  is  the  concretion  of  wealth  in  the  hands  of  a  few.  A  recent 
book  "Cotton  is  King" — shows  that  the  King  is  administered  by 
an  aristocracy  of  three  hundred  thousand  (300,000)  out  of  four 
millions  of  whites  (4.000,000).  If  the  entire  white  population 
seek  separate  Independence;  the  northern  states  will  no  more 
repress  it  than  did  George  III  with  the  Colonies.  There  will  be 
no  "peacable  secession;"  the  firm  has  assets  now  contended  for — 
and  the  arbiter  is  the  sword.  No  constitutional  party  will  avail 
when  sections  differ  as  you  and  I  do  as  to  what  it  means.  No 
law  will  be  enforced  when  men  like  William  H.  Seward  say  there 
is  a  "Higher  Law"  than  is  the  Federal  Supreme  law,  and  when 
men  like  Salmon  P.  Chase  say  in  the  Senate,  they  and  their  states 
will  not  observe  the  great  Compromises  of  1850-1854-6.  Our 
Union  is  a  compact  between  sovereigns,  and  if  one  breaks  a  treaty 
the  others  are  not  bound.  Call  it  a  partnership — unlimited  in 
times  as  they  usually  are — but  strictly  limited  in  action.  Few 
partnerships  anticipate  their  dissolution  or  fix  the  time.  One 
partner  extravagant  and  greedy  releases  the  rest,  for  no  one  may 
hold  others  to  take  advantage  of  his  own  wrong.     Death  dis- 


12 


solves  but  it  is  rarely  provided  for.  When  we  dissolve,  the  less 
will  leave  the  greater,  and  if  the  less  be  then  the  richer,  as  the 
south  now  is,  the  greater  will  not  be  amiable.  That  means  war; 
not  doubtful  if  Independence,  not  selfish  greed,  shall  actuate  a 
tier  of  states.  Once  made,  the  breach  will  never  heal.  Horace 
Greeley  says  two  sections  may  be  pinned  together  by  bayonets, 
but  not  the  hearts.  General  Scott  in  his  words,  "Wayward 
sisters  depart  in  peace"  refers  to  the  In  Pace  of  the  convent  nun 
walled  up  alive.  That  we  will  see.  Finally,  I  do  not  think  the 
Jeffersonian  amendments  are  unmeaning.  They  express  what 
the  convention  implied.  Esto  Perpetua  has  been  inscribed  on 
pyramids  and  empire  gates  and  cut  deeply  into  granite  and 
marble  tombs.  The  works  of  man  are  not  eternal.  We  are  far 
from  the  hoary  years  of  Thebes  and  Rome  and  England — Wait ! 
Our  temple  is  very  new,  but  it  shakes.  Oysters  and  little  brooks, 
coilia  insects  and  earth  worms  have  terms  outlasting  empires, 
Wait!  We  are  very  new.  Rereading  your  valuable  letter,  I 
note  this  question,  "What  of  state  rights  is  there  remaining  after 
all  of  the  enumerated  concessions  to  the  Federal  government?" 
I  answer  Sovereignty  that  is  everything.  I  now  have  in  my  hands 
as  Attorney  and  Trustee,  the  estate  of  three  girls  who  have 
sixty  thousand  dollars  each.  This  is  my  admission  that  I  do 
not  own  the  estate.  The  three  departments  of  the  General 
Government  do  not  constitute  the  union — remove  the  states  and 
the  agent  is  nothing. 

Let  me  suppose  that  you  return  to  public  life  and  one  day 
you  pen  this  entry  *  *  *  "On  the  fourth  day  of  March  1861 
I.  A.  L.  found  myself  to  be  the  secretary  of  a  convention  of  all  the 
states,  met  by  Delegates  in  Phila.  I  The  members  of  the  con- 
stitutional convention  sat  and  looked  at  each  other.  II  They  all 
agreed  to  disagree.  Ill  They  then  all  went  home.  Would  you 
then  write  "Finding  myself  in  the  historic  hall  like  a  bean  in  an 
empty  bag,  I,  therefore,  am  The  Union?"  Let  me  suppose  that 
to  pass  the  time,  you  spread  the  blue  Union- Jack  on  a  table  and 
with  chalk,  mark  out  among  the  stars,  the  line  of  dissolving  power. 
You  admit  that  all  of  say  thirty  three  states  could  dissolve  the 
Union.  Mark  out  one  as  dissenting — Maine  or  South  Carolina, 
and  you  will  admit  that  thirty-two  states  could  still  dissolve  the 
Union.  The  matter  is  practical.  The  constitution  of  17  Septem- 
ber 1787  began  to  take  shape  in  the  Delaware  convention  7 


J3 


Dec.  1787,  but  up  to  21  November  1789  North  Carolina  and 
Rhode  Island  had  not  ratified  and  were  of  the  1778  Confedera- 
tion. Twelve  states  in  convention  made  the  constitution, 
omitting  to  record  as  perpetual  the  greater  powers  they  loaned — 
and  up  to  May  29,  1790,  Rhode  Island  was  left  alone  in  the  Con- 
federation of  July  9,  1778.  Then  R.  I.  was  taxed  in.  You  can 
easily  divide  thirty-three  states  into  three  groups  of  eleven  each ; 
Eastern,  Western,  Southern,  Remove  slavery  and  the  South  and 
West  naturally  unite  for  good  commercial  reasons.  Could  not 
twenty-two  states  then  dissolve  the  Union?  Surely.  If  22: 
could  not  seventeen  (17)  a  majority  of  one?  So  the  old  Demo- 
cratic party  is  practically  divided  now.  If  17,  could  not  eleven 
(11)?  Interest  so  divides  us  now.  Judge  Benning  in  a  speech  I 
send  you,  argues  that  eleven  states  make  the  tobacco,  cotton,  rice, 
sugar  and  corn,  the  five  money  producing  staples;  against  the 
potatoes,  hay  and  wheat  of  the  more  populous  states.  Only  by 
their  commerce  that  of  lakes,  rivers  and  railways  being  largely  in 
excess  of  the  oceanic,  do  the  twenty-two  states  compare  with  the 
fruitful  eleven.  I  may  say  that  fourteen  states  are  yet  interested 
in  the  productiveness  of  slave  labor.  Surely  the  old  thirteen 
states  could  have  dissolved  the  union  which  they  made.  The 
repeated  recitation  of  the  term  perpetual  purposely  left  out  of  the 
constitution  is  like  the  "till  death  do  you  part"  of  marriage. 
Christ  and  Paul  admit  it  may  be  broken,  although  the  Vinculo 
Matrimoni  never  so  recites.  Any  other  fourteen  states  emerged 
from  territorial  chrysalis  become  vested  with  all  of  the  attributes 
of  statehood,  sovereignty  included.  If  fourteen  could  ever 
dissolve  the  union — can  they  not  now — cannot  one?  Where  do 
you  draw  the  line  of  power5  Eleven  less  populous  states,  having 
a  million  more  of  whites  and  four  millions  more  of  total  popula- 
tion than  had  the  old  thirteen,  if  united  as  then  for  a  new  Inde- 
pendence, would  surely  attain  it.  Great  Britain  had  as  many 
available  millions  as  you  have  and  failed.  You  in  your  welcome 
to  Louis  Kossuth,  expressed  high  regard  for  any  people  struggling 
for  liberty,  yet  the  slaves  of  the  south  are  in  as  good  condition  as 
were  Hungarian  serfs.  A  century  of  storm  and  shine  has  not  yet 
merged  our  thirteen  stripes  and  thirty  three  bright  stars  into  one 
smear  of  indistinguishable  Union.  God  keeps  us  yet  distinct? 
I  am  for  the  Union  as  our  fathers  made  it.     Georgia  commands 


14 


me — as  said  Ruth  to  Xaomi,  "The  Lord  do  so  to  me  and  more 
also  if  aught  save  death  separate  me  and  my  state." 

Yours  truly, 

Alexander  H.  Stephens. 


(The  foregoing  copy  of  letter  to  Mr.  Lincoln  by  Mr.  Stephens  is  signed 
by  Mr.  Stephens,  it  and  Mr.  Lincoln's  letter  of  Jany.  19th,  i860,  to  Mr. 
Stephens  (duplicated  for  Senator  Crittenden)  are  certified  to  by  Mr. 
Stephens  as  being  correct  copies  as  follows) 


15 


STATE  OF  GEORGIA 
Executive  Department 

Atlanta,  Ga.,  January  19th,    1883. 

Colo.  Henry  Whitney  Cleveland  at  your  request  I  certify  that 
the  7  sheets  of  legal  cap  paper  dated  Springfield,  Illinois  19, 
January  i860,  twenty  three  years  ago,  are  the  (dictated)  letter  of 
Abraham  Lincoln  to  me  on  the  political  issues  before  the  secession 
of  the  states  and  that  the  16  sheets  of  Executive  paper  constitute 
my  reply  from  Crawfordville,  Ga.,  January  25.  i860,  viz:  an 
exact  transcript  of  my  pencil  copy  written  in  bed,  which  I 
retained.  That  I  requested  you  not  to  include  this  correspon- 
dence nor  my  diary  written  when  a  prisoner  in  Fort  Warren, 
Boston  Harbor,  in  1865,  in  your  "Life  Letters  and  Speeches"  or 
Biography  of  myself,  because  I  intended  to  treat  the  matter  fully 
and  fairly  as  I  did  in  "The  War  Between  the  States."  Also  that 
I  did  authorize  the  use  in  both  books  of  the  Springfield,  Ills., 
A.  L.  of  November  30,  i860,  of  my  copy  reply  of  Ga.  14  Dec'r 
i860,  of  his  rejoinder  of  Dec'r  22,  i860,  and  also  of  my  longer 
sur-rejoinder  of  which  you  made  printed  and  not  fac  simili  copy. 
The  originals  are  yours  to  use  as  thought  best. 

Faithfully  yours, 

Alexander  H.  Stephens. 
(Only  the  signature  is  in  Mr.  Stephens'  handwriting.) 


All  of  the  foregoing  letters  were  in  December  1859  and  January 
i860. 

After  Mr.  Lincoln's  election,  the  following  correspondence 
with  Mr.  Stephens  was  had.  The  originals  of  these  letters  are  in 
my  collection  and  were  reproduced  in  fac-simile  in  Mr.  Cleveland's 
"Alexander  H.  Stephens  in  Public  and  Private  with  Letters  and 
Speeches"  as  mentioned  in  Mr.  Stephens'  certification  above. 

16 


Springfield,  Ills.,  Nov.  30,  i860. 

Hon.  A.  H.  Stephens 
My  dear  Sir. 

I  have  read,  in  the  newspapers,  your  speech  recently  delivered 
(I  think)  before  the  Georgia  Legislature  or  its  assembled  mem- 
bers. If  you  have  revised  it,  as  is  probable,  I  shall  be  much 
obliged  if  you  will  send  me  a  copy. 

Yours  very  truly, 

A.  Lincoln." 


17 


r^wmwm 


Original  draft  (copy  of  it  sent) 

Crawfordville,  Ga.,  14  December,  i860. 
"My  Dear  Sir 

Your  short  and  polite  note  of  the  30th  ulto  asking  for  a  revised 
copy  of  the  speech  to  which  you  refer  etc.  was  not  received  until 
last  night.  The  newspaper  report  of  the  speech  has  never  been 
revised  by  me.  The  notes  of  the  reporter  were  submitted  to  me 
and  corrected  to  some  extent  before  being  published  but  not  so 
thoroughly  as  I  would  have  wished.  The  report  was  substantially 
correct.  If  I  had  had  any  idea  that  it  would  have  been  so 
extensively  circulated  as  it  has  been  and  been  published  in  so 
many  papers  throughout  the  country  as  it  has  been  I  should  have 
prepared  a  copy  for  the  press  in  the  first  instance.  But  I  had  no 
such  thought  and  therefore  let  the  report  go  as  it  did.  There  are 
several  verbal  inaccuracies  in  it  but  the  main  points  appear 
sufficiently  clear  for  all  practical  purposes.  The  country  is 
certainly  in  great  peril  and  no  man  ever  had  heavier  or  greater 
responsibilities  resting  upon  him  than  you  have  in  the  present 
momentous  crisis. 

Yours  most  Respectfully, 

Alexander  H.  Stephens." 
Hon.  Abraham  Lincoln, 
Springfield,     111. 


r8 


For  your  own  eye  only 

Springfield,  Ills.,  Dec.  22,  i860. 
Hon.  A.  H.  Stephens. 
My  dear  Sir 

Your  obliging  answer  to  my  short  note  is  just  received  and  for 
which  please  accept  my  thanks.  I  fully  appreciate  the  present 
peril  the  country  is  in,  and  the  weight  of  responsibility  on  me. 
Do  the  people  of  the  South  really  entertain  fears  that  a  Republi- 
can administration  would,  directly,  or  indirectly,  interfere  with 
their  slaves,  or  with  them,  about  their  slaves?  If  they  do,  I  wish 
to  assure  you,  as  once  a  friend,  and  still,  I  hope,  not  an  enemy, 
that  there  is  no  cause  for  such  fears.  The  South  would  be  in  no 
more  danger  in  this  respect,  than  it  was  in  the  days  of  Washing- 
ton. I  suppose,  however,  this  does  not  meet  the  case.  You 
think  slavery  is  right  and  ought  to  be  extended;  while  we  think 
it  is  wrong  and  ought  to  be  restricted.  That  I  suppose  is  the  rub. 
It  certainly  is  the  only  substantial  difference  between  us. 

Yours  very  truly 

A.  Lincoln. 


19 


■ 


